## Facts

- Arthur D. Machado, a Connecticut attorney, was retained to represent Scott V. Adams, an incarcerated client, in a bankruptcy proceeding.
- At an initial meeting in January 2000, Adams instructed Machado to communicate through Kendra Cihocki due to Adams’ limited ability to communicate.
- Cihocki delivered an $850 retainer intended for Adams’ bankruptcy filing.
- Cihocki later directed Machado to work on releasing a sales tax lien on a business owned by Adams and Cihocki; Machado performed that work and depleted the retainer.
- Cihocki retrieved the file and retained new counsel; Machado took no further action on the bankruptcy matter.
- Machado did not inform Adams that he was no longer pursuing the bankruptcy.
- In 2000–2001, Adams attempted to contact Machado by telephone and mail for a status update but received no response.
- Adams filed a grievance complaint in March 2002 alleging lack of communication and failure to perform the agreed bankruptcy work.
- A reviewing committee held an evidentiary hearing, found violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) and 1.4(a), and issued a written reprimand; the Statewide Grievance Committee affirmed.
- Machado appealed to the Superior Court, which dismissed the appeal; he then appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported findings that Machado violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) and 1.4(a).
2. Whether the Superior Court erred by declining to consider an affidavit submitted after oral argument.
3. Whether scienter is required to establish violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) and 1.4(a).

## Decision

- The Appellate Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Machado’s appeal, leaving the reprimand in effect.
- The court held the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting violations of Rules 1.2(a) (client objectives) and 1.4(a) (communication).
- The court upheld the Superior Court’s refusal to consider a post-argument affidavit.
- The court held scienter is not an element of violations under Rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(a).

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of attorney discipline does not retry the matter; it assesses whether the committee’s conclusions were reasonably and logically drawn from the record, with deference to credibility determinations.
- Rule 1.2(a) is violated when a lawyer fails to abide by a client’s objectives of representation, including materially redirecting or abandoning the agreed objective without the client’s authorization.
- Rule 1.4(a) is violated when a lawyer fails to keep a client reasonably informed and fails to respond to reasonable requests for information, including by not communicating cessation of work on the client’s matter.
- Scienter is not required for violations of Rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(a); negligent or non-intentional conduct can warrant discipline.
- In grievance appeals, review is confined to the established record; post-argument submissions generally are not considered absent a proper procedural basis.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a reprimand where an attorney diverted a bankruptcy retainer to other work, ceased pursuing the client’s stated objective without informing the client, and failed to respond to client inquiries, concluding that these duty-based rules do not require proof of intent.


Machado v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 93 Conn. App. 832, 890 A.2d 622 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)